8 Ways the Media Doesn’t Understand Gun Owners

This is a dire situation: I have three anti-gun media hit pieces left to read, and I’m down to my last antacid. I normally ration them, but that last story was a real doozy. Why endure such torture? If you can grasp the mindset of someone who fears gun ownership—who doesn’t even trust himself with the right, let alone you—you’ll be better equipped to articulate your point of view. The more we’re familiar with the other side’s argument, misguided as it may be, the better equipped we are to defeat it.

I’ve learned something through this approach: Big Media does not understand gun owners. Their anti-gun stories range widely in subtlety, and could be categorized as lazy, intentionally anti-gun or unknowingly biased. The latest antacid-popper comes to us courtesy of The New Yorker and falls into the “unknowingly biased” category. Jill Lepore thinks she is a liberal crusader out there just trying to make a difference, which she has attempted to achieve through an unfair and condescending portrayal of gun ownership in America (She actually compares the ambience of a gun range to visiting a porn shop—what the hell?). Lepore’s story, while better written than some mindless anti-gun hit pieces, is undermined by a lack of empathy. There is a cavernous disconnect between liberal journalists (who don’t even recognize their own biases) and the plight of gun owners. Here are the top eight things anti-gun journalists don’t seem to understand about us.

Next Up: 8 Most Impractical Handguns in History

One aspect of Lepore’s story revolves around a high school shooting. Both parents of the shooter have been in and out of jail for violent crimes, including against each other. The mother is a volatile alcoholic. The father was convicted of kidnapping and assaulting another woman. Reminds you of your home, right?

Then one day their son steals his uncle’s gun, takes it to school and commits an atrocity. It’s a sad story. It would perhaps bring some resolution if a preventative measure could be found. Lepore tries to find a tenable link between gun owners and mass shootings, but her reasoning is dubious at best.

Journalists always want to point the finger at gun owners after such tragedies, as if there’s some way to legislate away the actions of a madman intent on mayhem without expunging the freedoms of law-abiding Americans. They ignore the failures of liberal social programs and instead want to create “gun free zones,” forgetting that this is in fact where most mass shootings occur (even in highly firearm-restrictive European countries). And, perhaps most frustrating of all, they deny that an average armed citizen can halt a mass shooting. It’s happened, notably at a church in Colorado, a high school in Mississippi, at the Appalachian State law school and elsewhere.

If journalists want us to take them seriously, they should at least learn a little about the firearms they so irrationally fear. When we read about an “AK-47” used in a crime that turns out to have been a regular old bolt-action, or when journalists use such terms as “.12-caliber shotgun”, “automatic revolver” or “spray fire assault rifle,” he reveals his ignorance. He entirely discredits himself. And that’s one of the reasons why so many of us tend toward media skepticism even when it comes to non-gun issues.

You can’t just single out a freedom you don’t like and call it a “loophole.” In the United States, we have the right to own firearms. We have the right to sell firearms. If I want to walk across the street and sell my 1911 to a neighbor right now, I have that freedom, as long as he’s legally able to buy a gun and I’m a legal seller. These same transactions occur at gun shows between private sellers. To require a background check between such individuals would essentially end all private transactions—and that is of course the goal of those who push such legislation. So please, journalists, quit griping about gun shows and we won’t touch your “Free Speech Loophole.”

Lepore’s article once again drags out the old argument that, unlike every other freedom guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be a collective right. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court looked into this issue and ruled that the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual right to gun ownership. Can we move on?

Gun rights and pride in gun ownership hit a marked decline in the early to mid-1990’s, but since then things have changed. Gun owners have adjusted their strategy. We’re back on offense, and journalists don’t seem to understand what happened.

Personally, I believe we almost began apologizing for guns during the Clinton Administration. However, at some point we decided to get back to being honest: Shooting guns is an important freedom, we aren’t sorry about it and shooting them is good wholesome entertainment. That’s a message that resonates with the public, if not anti-gun journalists. The media establishment seems baffled by the Brady Campaign’s financial woes. And poll after poll that indicates growing support for gun ownership.

Namely we win because shooting is fun. If you take a rookie shooter to the range, their smile upon that first shot is practically blinding. Despite what they may have read about guns in the media, they just learned how much fun it is to send a round downrange. And there’s nothing a New York City journalist can do to convince them otherwise.

Firearms and ammo manufacturers make up practically the only industry that’s actually doing well during this tough recession. Gun buyers are so active that Ruger had to quit taking orders for certain guns. We’ve set sales and NICS check records. And yet journalists buy into the strategy of anti-gunners to portray gun owners as a fringe group. A dying breed.

Lepore makes this argument, citing a survey by National Policy Opinion Center at the University of Chicago. However, numbers don't lie: Gun ownership is up and, perhaps not coincidentally, the violent crime rate is down.

Lazy journalists love to drag out the old saying, “You’re more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.” Find some new facts—that one’s been discredited. It counted illegally possessed guns and gang members right along with the legitimate homes. And it only took into account incidents in which shots were fired.

According to a study by Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used in lawful self-defense 2.5 million times per year. However, most times the mere presence of a firearm is enough to frighten away the miscreant without shots being fired. Bad guy kicks the door down. Little old lady points a .22 at him. Bad guy runs away. The incident may not even be reported to police. You see, journalists, unlike the way you insist on portraying us, we don’t really want to shoot anybody. But, if we have to, we’d rather be prepared to protect ourselves than wait for the police and hope for the best.

Note to the media: Quit citing hugely inflated Brady Campaign statistics to undermine our gun rights. The Brady Bunch is not some credible non-profit just out there seeking the truth, but an extreme anti-gun group with a complete willingness to lie to meet objectives. At the very least, please admit that the Brady’s anti-gun bias is as great as the NRA or NSSF’s pro-gun views. Instead, you act as if Sarah Brady preaches the gospel, then you bury a few facts from NRA deep in the story, hinting that they must be taken with a grain of salt, or you’ll ignore the pro-gun side altogether. That’s lazy journalism, and we notice.

You assume the medium is not the message. It's not ever going to be a intellectual symposium. It's only going to be NRA or Brady propaganda. It's there to sell an image or at best soap. They are not ever going to get it right because its not their goal.

John

CIG it is better to be thought a fool than post that and prove it. You know the words but not the place, glasses don't make you smart nor do the words. An "itellectual symposium" come-on. Your an idiot buddy.

John

Opps, high on all that lead.

Alan

The saddest thing about this is that perhaps a majority of Americans are only connected enough to get their news from the 6:00 news, and all they receive is the bias and inaccuracy of the network TV anchors. As CIG stated above, this will never be an intellectual exercise; you either get it or you don't. But, we need not worry too much, because as things inevitably get worse, guns and ammo will be sought by more and more Americans, even those who once upon a time couldn't envision themselves owning firearms.

Mike

Gun Show Loophole:
In PA you are required to go through an FFL to sell a handgun. Long guns can be sold face to face though.

Glenn

Pointless none the less since criminals do NOT obey the law and would not be going to an FFL regardless.

http://www.facebook.com/kennith.perry Kennith E Perry

And what does that have to do with this article?

WSA

Firearms a key component to liberty. That why it was the second amendment, where free speech was the first. Hand-in-hand the first two are very important to sustain our freedom.

Slide 7 and slide 1 are the same story, different picture. If you want to beat the liberal journalists at their own game, be sure you actually write better than they do!

Ben_OBrien

You're exactly right. We fixed it. Thanks for keeping us on our toes.

Ben O'Brien
Managing Editor

spinafish

I want to send a poster with cartridge nomenclature…so the news writers won't appear so stupid when the newscaster points out the bullet casings on the ground….what are bullet casing? where they shooting sabots?

Keith

I just had a conversation with the guy that runs our office. It is against company policy to have a gun anywhere on our property, including having a gun in your car while it's parked in the lot. I mentioned that it was one of the dumbest policies that a company can institute. He started to say he didn't want to talk about a political matter and I said "No, not political or even legal. I'm just talking about plain old common sense." He was curious about what I meant so I explained that anyone who would be willing to use a gun to commit a crime doesn't give a rat's sweaty ballsack about "policies" or even laws. Those are the people that you are actually protecting with that policy. The people who are honest law-abiding, concealed handgun licensed, sane people are the one that will protect everyone else from some wacko going postal. Those are the people that you are hindering, not the people who are willing to break the rules in the first place. He looked at me like I had just clearly explained a concept that he had never gotten before in his whole life (which I probably did).

People (with the media's support) just don't understand that you can make laws up the wazzoo, but you are only binding the hands of the people who don't need those laws to be safe. With well armed law-abiding citizens, you don't need 1/2 the laws that are already on the books, let alone any new ones.

Alan_T

Extremely well done Keith ! Kudos !

james

I used to bring in my Guns & Ammo and NRA magazines to work for the lunch room.

Somebody complained about this, nothing against the rules mind you, however,
I'm mr no problem so I say "no problem" I'll take t hem to my car and not bring in any magazines,
including all the magazines my wife reads and I then take to work.

We have a no weapon rule as well and guess what, another person contacted home office and
complained that I was a gun nut.

They sent HR lady from home office out to the store to check my car, since it was on company lot.

No problem I say, here is the key, have at it, only thing they could fine was some used targets
from the other day at the range and a half used box of ammo.

No violations here. ha ha.

Keith

"OMG! He said the word 'gun', so now we have to overreact!!!" You have to wonder what these people are so afraid of. I think they are afraid that someone might shoot them for being such dicks.

CXL

Take the NRA magazines, go the page where it lists the
people that used guns to save themselves. Take your pen and where the article states someone was killed, mark a BIG -1 (minus one). Tear that page out and leave it on the lunchroom bulletin board and see what she says!!

james

Ruger is not taking any orders until May 2012 because they are at capacity. Way to go.

My S&W stock has almost tripled in price since I purchased it.

Keeping American workers working in American factories.

Guns of Ohio

Great story Kieth. I've had those conversations too. I have a buddy who was a liberal actor for many years until he got a role that required him to learn how to use a handgun. He came to me and asked me to train him so he didn't look like a novice, so I did. Today he is a proud gun owner, and no longer a liberal. I really wish it was as simple as 8 things. The issue is so vast, so dependent on circumstance, location, upbringing, education, and opinion, it's never going to go away. When people say things like "I don't believe in guns" I tend to get a little defensive. They're not Santa. To my ears it's like saying "I don't believe in cars".

Gary

I grew up with guns and have always been a gun owner and collector. I also have a CCW and carry concealed. I am a liberal leaning independent. I don't base my voting on only one issue, I vote for the good of the people in our country not based upon only one issue. After all the damage Mr Bush did to this country I voted democratic for the good of our country. Not all liberals are out to take our guns away. We all must be vigilant to ensure no one takes that right away but we must all be concerned as to what else is going on such as the republican congress trying to do away with Social Security and Medicare etc. I am very interested in those issues as well as the gun control issue. I know my beliefs will not go over very well but I had my say

Keith

@Gary – I'm glad I get to be the first to respond to your post. I consider myself much more of a "conservative" than a liberal, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. According to Student News Daily, conservatives supposedly "believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems." And yet, the republicans in this country want to control women and strip the civil rights away from all sorts of people. I just don't get it. I'm not happy with the controls that liberals want to put in place, but there is no way to maintain the strength of our country without social support for the poor, education, unemployment. The republicans in this country just seem to want the gap between the richest 1% and the rest of the country to widen, which I just don't understand. Right now the richest 1% holds about 40% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 80% holds about 7% of the nations wealth. How can that possibly be good for the nation? If "trickle down" economics works, I'd sure like to know where that 40% is trickling down to, cause it sure doesn't seem to be trickling down to the rest of us.

dad

You seem to be a very inteligent person and well informed about our reality, so I do not undestand your personal atack with personal offenses to my post.

dad

First of all – I like guns, I own guns since I was 22, I learn to shot at age 14 and all my family know how to use guns.
The problem here is that there are extremists at both sides:
Completely against or completely in favor of guns.
The right of freedom to have guns says that every RESPONSIBLE citizen can have guns.
My point here is exactly on the RESPONSIBLE part. The UNRESPONSIBLE citizens just bring the bad name to gun owners. Guns do not kill people; they are just the instrument as a knife, a car, a baseball bat or anything else. People kill people – and how can we prevent that UNRESPONSIBLE people own guns or get in contact with then? Here are some comments to the post:

dad

1.If a kid takes a gun and shoots at school, an UNSRESPONSIBLE gun owner failed in keeping it in a safe place – locked or with a restrainer.
2.Does someone really need a 50 BMG rifle? Is it really necessary for your personal defense? Are they going to hunt Godzilla or King Kong?
3.Yes, Gun shows are a loophole. In the majority of states you buy a gun from another owner without any check. If the buyer is a lunatic, if he is angry with his boss, wife or neighbor or even he is a criminal – he will buy the gun without any check.
4.Do you really need 20 guns for your personal defense? Even if you are a hunter or practice shooting sports you do not need 10 or 20 guns. If you have 20 guns – are they in a safe place?
5.We do not need “Dirty Harry” vigilantes as Zimmerman – they gave a bad name to gun owners.

If we want to keep our right to own guns, we must fight the UNRESPONSIBLE gun owners. What does prevent a maniac from buying a gun today ?

Keith

@dad – Funny that you are capitalizing RESPONSIBLE, like no one here knows what that means. One has to wonder what your bias is…

1. I believe that having a gun in my home should be considered responsible enough. How is it my fault that someone breaks into my house to steal my gun? In that same line of thought, should I be held responsible if someone breaks into my car, steals it, and then runs over someone? What if my guns are in a lock box that the thief manages to break into? Where do you draw the line? Yes, as a responsible gun owner, I actually have 3 gun safes in my home, but how can I be held responsible if I lock my house and someone breaks in and steals something?

2. How is it any of your concern as to the type and caliber of gun I own? Are you going to regulate the size of car I drive, too? Are you going to regulate the size of a house I own? I don't have any kids, are you saying that I should only be allowed to own a 1 bedroom house? How dare you arbitrarily decide what limitation should be expressed upon me?

3. No, gun shows are not loopholes. There are regulations on how many guns can be sold per person, so that almost every seller at a gun show is a registered firearms broker. And if you buy from them, you must go through the same background check as everyone else. I have bought guns at gun shows. How many guns have YOU bought at gun shows where you didn't need a background check? I'm guessing NONE.

4. This is exactly the same as your number 2. Once again, what is the limit on the number of vehicles I can own? What is the limit of the number of houses a person can own? What is the limit to the number of TVs a person can own? If I own 1 gun, what difference does it make if I own 100 more? Some people just like to collect guns. Who are you to determine that people shouldn't be "allowed" to have that hobby? And, by the way, the more guns a person has, the more "paranoid" (if you want to call it that) they are about safety. People don't collect thousands of dollars worth of collectible firearms only to leave them out on their back porch at night.

5. There are laws against people shooting other people. I don't care if you are a gun collector with 100 guns are you just found a crappy little .22, if you shoot someone you are tried under the same rules. Zimmerman will go to trial. But his actions should not be used to MY actions or anyone else here. If WE are responsible with our firearms, then WE should be allowed to own them. If HE is convicted, he will lose that right. The system is already in place for that.

There are laws that are already in place that prevent "maniacs" from buying guns. The more BS laws that are put into place to prevent responsible, reasonable people from owning and carrying guns, the more those "maniacs" are allowed to victimize people. The government tends to think like a rich snob; if there is a problem, throw money at it. For the gmt, if there is a problem, throw regulations and laws against it until one actually fixes the problem. Unfortunately, most of the politicians are too stupid to figure out how to write an effective law. It's not the number of laws that are the problem; it is how they are written and how useless they are. For example, if you are a felon you can't own a gun. Even if that felony is not being able to pay child support because you were out of work for 6 months. But people with violent histories, but are only convicted of misdemeanors CAN have guns. In other words, the laws are pretty ineffective because of the idiots who wrote them. Adding MORE restrictions isn't the answer. The answer is correcting the restrictions that are already in place to allow guns into the largest number of hands while keeping them out of the most dangerous hands.

dad

This is typical from people that just lost their agument . . . just start with ofenses.

PKAISF

"This is typical from people that just lost their agument ". This seems a bigoted generalization but I'll bite…..exactly what "ofenses" are you referring to? I have to tell you "Dad", I think I would speak, write, act, and insist upon things exactly as you do………IF I wanted America to Fail.

Phil

dad from all your negatives it looks like YOU are the one who lost the argument, chowderhead

Alan_T

You're missing the point with your points dad ,
( POINT ! ) the word is IRESPONSIBLE not unresponsible .
( POINT 2 ) it isn't about " NEEDING " a .50 BM rifle for self defense or otherwise . If you use THAT fallacious argument , once the .50 is demised and gone , you turn around and use the same argument on the M1 Garand ( or any other firearm that meets the current Liberal displeasure ) until the M1 is gone … and so forth .

Alan_T

( POINT 3 ) Gun shows are NOT loopholes …. That's just more Liberal nonsense , lunatics pass NICS checks , someone angry with his wife , boss or neighbor , they will be just as angry when they buy the firearm through a NICS check ! ! ! …. and MOST criminals STEAL the firearms that are used .
( POINT 4 ) Do I NEED 20 guns for my personal defense ? Maybe , maybe I do , maybe not , who's going to tell me ? YOU ? … But again , it's NOT ABOUT NEED ,
( POINT 5 ) Who is this " WE " ? I don't know that ( MR .) Zimmerman is a " ' Dirty Harry ' vigilante " OR that ( MR.) Zimmerman is guilty , but apparently YOU , in your all mighty wisdom , have already tried and convicted him . From God's mouth to your ear , huh , dad ?
Sounds to me like YOU are the IRRESPONSIBLE ONE ( unresponsible is an incorrect word ) and you sound like a " Liberal mole " , dad !

arji

IRRESPONSIBLE —> 2 R's

Mr. Reed

TOLL – – – > arji

Alan_T

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Mr . Reed !
I think you meant troll ……… but your point is well taken ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mr. Reed

Yea, well sort of goes to show you about typos huh lol

Alan_T

arji ……… So what ?

It was a typo where one " R " got droped , the word is spelled correctly in the rest of the post , but more importantly the word itself is correct and used correctly .

So …. what's your point ?

Do you have one ? ?

Anything , anything at all ? ? ?

windsailor

You really don't understand do you? There are people, myself included, who collect guns like some people collect tea pots. Also, many of us feel that if we possess them they should be functional and perform accurately so we fire them. As for obtaining firearms, they can be stolen just like cars and are certainly easier to carry away. You seem to forget that George Zimmer has not been tried in courts of LAW so in this country, at least formerly, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. And as for buying guns from individuals, you had better have a handgun permit from the buyer before you sell it, because the gun is traceable back to you should it be used in a crime.

http://www.facebook.com/kennith.perry Kennith E Perry

By that ilogical statement,If a kid gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone I guess every car owner is responsible. I don't need 20 guns or a .50 cal but it's none of your business what I own.

Gitarzan

Does someone really need a Porsche to drive to work when a Kia will do? Do you need a house with 4 bedrooms when you only have 3 people in your family? I could go on but I hope you get the point. This is a free country and you can own anything you can afford and responsibly use. I have 8 guitars even though I can only play 1 at a time. Lawless criminals will always abuse their rights and the rights of others. We don't need to tell people what they can own.

Arji

8 guitars – cool! At one time I had 14 but most were "less-than-average". I sold all but 4 and bought a few more amps to help me cope with my loss.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1646251133 Joe Brown

Do you really need a car that goes over 60mph because that is the speed limit? Do you really need good tasting food because all you really need to survive are calories? Do you really need that house that has more than one room? Do you really need flushing toilets? Do you really need a big television? Do you really need the freedom to vote, people have lived under the thumb of a dictator for thousands of years? Do you really need your freedom at all? How about you stop worrying about what other people "need," we live in America where you should be able to not only have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or Property) but also have the one product that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Yeah, that's right, the right to bear arms not the right to bear less than 10 arms of a certain caliber… it's not hard to figure out. I hate these people that try to dictate what others "need." "Rich people don't need all that money" even though they earned it and will spend it far better than anyone that takes it away from them. Pretty soon it won't just be guns or money that people don't need, it will be all of our guaranteed individual rights, replaced by the collective rights that sacrifice the individual for the good of "society."

charley tango

'Need' has nothing to do with it. But when it comes to that, you don't 'need' to speak a dissenting word about anything anywhere, because you don't need that part of the First Amendment that sort of says opinions don't have to agree. They used to call that sedition.
If a kid takes a gun to school it is likely because the parents have a certain failing- like teaching about responsibility. If some dude has a bunch of guns it's like the guy with a garage full of tools and toys- 'need' is a lousy argument.

warren loendorf

Note to Jill Lapore.
I have never been to a porn shop. Tell me about them.

Jill Lapore can take me to the porn shop and I'll take her to my gun store and range. At least when we leave the range/gun shop they ask you to wash your hands after you've handled the ammo The kind of person that says "what do you need with a .50 BMG?" is just jealous. I don't need 20 guns – I need _more_ than 20. I've been asked why I have so many firearms to which I respond "you golf right?…. what do you need with all those clubs? You can only use one at a time right?" Most of the time they get the point.

The media is out to vilify the gun owning public – the mostly think of people who own some other firearms than perhaps a Browning O/U or S&W Model 10 that hasn't been fired in 35 years shoved at the bottom of a desk drawer as gun toting knuckle dragging mouth breathing neanderthals.

Someone had mentioned that it's a bit short sighted to be a single issue voter – my response about this is – If the politician doesn't respect the second amendment (or claims that they support some BS about hunting or a collective right or adds in some type of restrictions clause) or somehow doesn't trust his constituents with firearms I could care less if they support every other issue I care about.

More to the point of the article – if the media runs a muck with a fluff piece that's incorrect (and not just clip vs. magazine) it's up to us to call them on it. Unlike many "conservative" talk shows the opposing caller doesn't always get moved to the top of the list but every once in a while a decent letter does get published in the opinion pages or every so often the TV news does interview a well spoken, clean cut person who is advancing the ball for the 2nd amendment and the "good guys".

warren loendorf

dad, you are one remarkable person. Without benefit of any testimony you have already convicted Mr. Zimmerman. When is his sentencing????????????????????????

Alan_T

Yeah , seems to be a lot of that going around Warren .

matt aronson

in 1988, only 68% of the populations supported private ownership of firearm; today, it's nearly 90%.

Glenn

One letter to the editor (of NYM) sent… and much to their dismay.. I'm not only Canadian.. and pointed out the massive failure of her "logic" but I'm also more of a Liberal (aka democrat) as a rule .. but I'm also very very much pro gun hands down. So much for the "gun nuts" only being back woods hicks screwing their sister as they desperately want to portray us as.

Ryan

.50 BMG's are for long range target and competition shooting.
As for needing 10, 20 or more guns there is a lot of different types of firearms out there and some of us like to shoot many different calibers and types of weapons.

Alan_T

No offense intended Glenn … I used to be a Liberal ( still am in some areas ) but I've learned that in U . S . politics ( yes , I know you're Canadian ) , that in order for the politician to get elected , they almost always have to march in lock – step with the party platform . Consequently , I ( almost , but not always ) vote for the GOP now , because I feel that the 2nd Amendment of the U . S . Constitution is THE MOST important issue .
Anyway Glenn , I gave you a " thumbs up " , glad to see that you're a fellow " gun nut " my friend !

Glenn

None taken. I say "Liberal" since explaining in more detail is a PITA.. though Libertarian is probably closer. "Classical Liberal" might fit.. but again many do not know wtf I'm talking about then etc.. in short though.. socially Liberal.. fiscally conservative.

I agree.. though I think the systems on both sides of the border are deeply flawed sadly

Hell to get the guns I do have I had to privately import them from the US.. and those I owned before sadly have to stay in the US (due to moron CDN laws.. don't ask)

As for me.. PM me.. I'd love to chat more sometime friend from that side of the border

dad

Part 1
First of all – I like guns, I own guns since I was 22, I learn to shot at age 14 and all my family know how to use guns.
The problem here is that there are extremists at both sides:
Completely against or completely in favor of guns.
The right of freedom to have guns says that every RESPONSIBLE citizen can have guns.
My point here is exactly on the RESPONSIBLE part. The UNRESPONSIBLE citizens just bring the bad name to gun owners. Guns do not kill people; they are just the instrument as a knife, a car, a baseball bat or anything else. People kill people – and how can we prevent that UNRESPONSIBLE people own guns or get in contact with then? Here are some comments to the post:
cont.

Heretic

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

Keith

@Heretic – "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! "

Actually, it's kind a requirement, isn't it?

"The best way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Or, more appropriately, "The best way for tyranny to triumph is for free men to do nothing."

dad

Part 2
1.If a kid takes a gun and shoots at school, an UNSRESPONSIBLE gun owner failed in keeping it in a safe place – locked or with a restrainer.
2.Does someone really need a 50 BMG rifle? Is it really necessary for your personal defense? Are they going to hunt Godzilla or King Kong?
3.Yes, Gun shows are a loophole. In the majority of states you buy a gun from another owner without any check. If the buyer is a lunatic, if he is angry with his boss, wife or neighbor or even he is a criminal – he will buy the gun without any check.
4.Do you really need 20 guns for your personal defense? Even if you are a hunter or practice shooting sports you do not need 10 or 20 guns. If you have 20 guns – are they in a safe place?
5.We do not need “Dirty Harry” vigilantes as Zimmerman – they gave a bad name to gun owners.
If we want to keep our right to own guns, we must fight the UNRESPONSIBLE gun owners. What does prevent a maniac from buying a gun today ?

KILLER

It's IRRESPONSIBLE you wolf in sheeps clothing.
!!!!

dad

Nice meeting you.

John

The vast majority of major media talking heads grew up in an apartment in Boston, Long Island, DC, or LA. They have never even touched a real gun, let alone handled or fired one. For that matter, they have never baited a hook or caught a real fish. They grew up in a dream world that shaped their idea of reality and now they are trying to sell us their experiences as a vision of what life is supposed to be. Their political correctness is real to them and they don't know why anyone could possibly have a different opinion. How about an NRA "media day" at the range? Get the movers and shakers of the network news out there to shoot real guns and meet some people who know which end the bullet comes out of. It might give them a different idea of whacked out redneck gun nuts. Get Diane Sawyer or Brian Williams or that sissy Lester Holt out on a range and introduce them to a few basics about guns that they always get wrong. Education will make this country a better place and it might just improve the perception of gun owners.

Jim

Great one, John! Ignatius Piazza of Front Sight does just that. He won't allow a media interview (anticipating a hit piece) until they've gone through either his 2-day defensive handgun or Uzi course…at his expense. Result? A bunch of liberal media converts and NO hit pieces.

Alan_T

You're missing the point with your points dad ,
( POINT ! ) the word is IRESPONSIBLE not unresponsible .
( POINT 2 ) it isn't about " NEEDING " a .50 BM rifle for self defense or otherwise . If you use THAT fallacious argument , once the .50 is demised and gone , you turn around and use the same argument on the M1 Garand ( or any other firearm that meets the current Liberal displeasure ) until the M1 is gone … and so forth .
( POINT 3 ) Gun shows are NOT loopholes …. That's just more Liberal nonsense , lunatics pass NICS checks , someone angry with his wife , boss or neighbor , they will be just as angry when they buy the firearm through a NICS check ! ! ! …. and MOST criminals STEAL the firearms that are used .

Alan_T

( POINT 4 ) Do I NEED 20 guns for my personal defense ? Maybe , maybe I do , maybe not , who's going to tell me ? YOU ? … But again , it's NOT ABOUT NEED ,
( POINT 5 ) Who is this " WE " ? I don't know that ( MR .) Zimmerman is a " ' Dirty Harry ' vigilante " OR that ( MR.) Zimmerman is guilty , but apparently YOU , in your all mighty wisdom , have already tried and convicted him . From God's mouth to your ear , huh , dad ?
Sounds to me like YOU are the IRRESPONSIBLE ONE ( unresponsible is an incorrect word ) and you sound like a " Liberal mole " , dad !

dad

I think you do not have internet acess or TV – maybe in few years it will be available in your town . . .

Watch the video of Mr. Z arrest – noblod in his vests, no marks of punch in his face and head . . .people just like you that help to make a "Bad Name" for gun owners. Maybe you have your .50 to compensate for somethng that is missing in your life.

Keith

You are talking about the video of his arrest TWO WEEKS after the killing, right?

Alan_T

I HAVE watched the video , the one where Mr . Zimmerman is being brought into the police station and it CLEARLY SHOWS a " Y " shaped gash on the back of Mr . Zimmerman's skull ! ! ! As far as blood on Mr . Zimmerman's face …… It has been noted that the paramedics who responded to the scene CLEANED the blood off of Mr . Zimmerman's face ( as per typical regulations ) , OH … but I forgot , God speaks to us through His prophet , dad ! ! !
It's people like YOU , that makes people like me necessary , you dishonest , illiterate , Liberal mole !
The , " Maybe you have your .50 to compensate for somethng ( sic { that's incorrect too , it's some thing } ) that is missing in your life. " , THAT is classic Liberal diversionary drivel which PROVES that YOU ARE a Liberal mole out to cause trouble ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Alan_T

By the way dad or Gil Starr or whatever name you're calling yourself today ….. I have internet access ( SIC the " i " is capitalized , you dummy ) or else I wouldn't be here and THIS just came in on TV , …. you're pretty poor at your subterfuge , you illiterate moron ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Alan_T

From ABC News 5 / 15 / 12
" A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury "

HaChris

Which, unless you are jumping to conclusions in favor of Zimmerman now, only means that there was a confrontation. When pursued and confronted, Martin had the law on his side and was legally justified attacking, even killing Zimmerman, and Zimmerman, unless he can PROVE that he had retreated from the confrontation HE caused, and was subsequently attacked, has no defense under SYG for the homicide he committed, even if he was in fear for his life, since he created the entire situation. In other words, you cannot pursue, confront, fight with and then kill someone, and then claim you were afraid for your life, and expect to walk around free. I have no use for people who think that guns are the problem, but in this and many other cases, it is idiot people who use guns as false bravery that are the problem, and that gives the anti-gun group more fodder.

Alan_T

@ HaChris … This post was for dad and several others who repearedly claimed here and elsewhere , that Mr . Zimmerman had NO INJURIES and is not intended as a defense one way or the other . I don't know what happened , I wasn't there , NOR WERE YOU , HaChris , but for you to suggest that Mr . Martin was in anyway justified as YOU SAY in " attacking " and " even killing " Mr . Zimmerman , IS INSANE ! Which means that you are insane !

Poor Jack

@HaChis there;s something wrong with you. Alan's right, you sound like youre not all there!

S-W-S

In all fairness, I have seen gun owners look like teenagers in a porn shop… I've also seen chocoholics look like a teenager in a porn shop as they walk into a chocolatier, or a cheese lover in a cheese shop or a journalist in a Brady Convention…

There are a few, actually quite a lot of things that really get me about the anti-gun media. One is the insisting on blaming the gun for a crime. Like the gun jumped up and started shooting all on it's own.

Another thing is the misused terminology. I have seen some of the ones listed in the article. But the all-time best misused term, or actually a accumulations of misused terms is " an semi-automatic assault weapon of mass destruction". I have actually seen that one used.

Another thing that get me is the figures that they put up. Like the 30,000 gun deaths each year. When in fact that figure is closer to the 24,000 mark right now. Also, the do not either by design, dramatic effect, or ignorance include the components of that number. In 2010 there were 8,775 homicides by firearms. [outright murders] Also in that number are the defensive shootings, roughly about 600 to 700. Police shootings are also included in that number, roughly about that same as defensive shootings. Another component is the accidental shootings, which is about 500 to 600. The rest are suicides. And the anti-gun media refuse to acknowledge that the suicides would find a different avenue if a gun was not available.

Keith

@wolfover – That's like when they say "the unemployment rate is only 8%. It's so low because of all the people who have gotten so frustrated they 'stopped looking' for work". Like people have the option to just not bother to look for work because they are "frustrated". Wouldn't that make those people "homeless"? The media really thinks that we are all idiots. But then again, how many people buy these lies?

wolflover3825

One more that I will mention is the intentional misleading statements. The ones that they make a statement, but leave the rest of it un-printed as to hide the actual truth behind such things. Like when they talk about the HR 822 bill. They claim that it will allow criminals to go from state to state without any regulations. But the fact is, the criminals already do that anyway. They do not understand that no matter how many laws that are passed or enacted, only the law abiding are going to pay attention to the laws. The criminals will still ignore them. The criminals will not stop and say, "Wait, that is against the law to take my illegally possessed gun across that line. I better stop."

Tommy

Exactly…
I was gonna shoot that guy, but wait there's a sign "Gun Free Zone".
Damn, now I gotta bash his brains in with a brick…

Pete

While I'm in full agreement of the general content of the article by Mr. Wintersteen he makes a comment in point 6, gun ownership is on the decline. He claims that Ms Lapore doesn't cite a reference for her case. She in fact cites a General Social Survey by the National Policy Opinion Center of the University of Chicago for her source. I personally did not look up the study, nor care to since I connect Chicago with Obama, but there is a source cited. Mr.Wintersteen is guilty of doing just what he accuses of the anti-gun journalist. If he is going to make a claim against an article or it's author, he should either check the source, or be more careful about his accusation.

Ben_OBrien

Pete,

You're exactly right. Kyle e-mailed me this morning to let me know of the mistake and we have clarified it in the story above. Thanks for keeping us on our toes.

Ben O'Brien
Managing Editor

Bruce

Seems to me you guys have it covered and don't leave much to add, lol. I have several guns, let see, On light weight 45 for carry and one really heavy weight for my nightstand. My wife has a light weight Berretta PX4 for carry and a Sig 357 for her night stand. I have a home protection shotgun, also a shot gun for Turkey hunting and another for Duck and Geese. Wow let's done forget deer hunting with my 06 and Squirrel hunting with my 410 or 22. I love competition so I have several really nice 1911's, my wife loves the SR22 from Ruger to compete with. The list goes on and all are locked up in a safe in a home that all the kids are now adults doing the same things I am. God Bless America, the constitution. If it wasn't for the 1st Ammendment the media wouldn't have a platform to speak from and the should be grateful the 2nd Ammendment is there to gurantee that platform. @Dad, you should join us and find out what it is really all about, you seem lost.

dad

Bruce,

I am not confuse. I am in favor of RESPONSIBLE gun onwership. I love competition also and have been on it since I was 17.

Drapper

dad the word's confused and if you aint , you sure sound like it dumbass

dad

Do not confuse your personality with others. The first sing of loosing an argument is to start on personal offenses . . .

Drapper

Damn dad, your stupid, even if you spelled the suff right that dont even make sense

QUIET EVERYBODY ! ….. dad's gonna sing the " loosing an argument song " for us !
Loosing ? ….. do you mean losing as in lost OR is it loosing as in letting loose , dad ?
Anyway …. here's the mic dad , sing you little heart out . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001281328459 Paul Moore

Being an old guy, I am 67, I remember growing up in Pa. and quite often walking along a two land blacktop or a dirt road with four or five of my buddies and we were all carrying rifles or shotguns. Today, if four or five young teenagers were seen doing the same thing, quite a few people would die. Not because of the boys shooting them , but because the sky would be so crowded with TV choppers and News choppers they would be crashing into each other and falling out of the sky. Most of us had a deer rifle at 12 or 13 and quite a few of us carried pistols too, especially if we ran a trapline. And guess what, we never shot each other, nor did we shoot with out knowing where the shot was going if we missed. And as my daughter grew up and my grandkids too, I taught them that guns are not a toy, but can be fun, as long as you pay attention to what you are doing. So part of the problem has to be people letting their kids learn about guns by watching the news and worse yet, watching movies and playing violent video games. It is up to us to pass our knowledge along to them and hopefully they learn. Just a old guy rambling.

James Macklin

Several years ago I "gave" a free NRA membership to a newspaper editor so she could see first hand what the BRA was all about. She took offense and canceled the membership because she said, "she didn't want to appear to be biased."
Actually reading Thew American Rifleman might result in contamination of her :editorial purity." The use of Brady materials though was just research.
I had a similar situation in a college class on the Bill of Rights, that was advertised as" free speech and open." However when I brought materials I had been collecting for about 30 years, I was told to leave te class.
But since the HELLER and McDONALD cases I feel much better.
But I am very afraid that people will sit home and not vote for gun ownership and civil rights. Whoever is the next President, will set the balance of the Court for 10-20 years.
Ifyou don't like Romney, you must really feel threatened by Obama. Just know that the next President may be the last President of the United States of America.
On the subject of George Zimmerman… He is being railroaded by a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Florida Governor.
Florida statute 776.p032 says that a person who has used force in self-defense MAY NOT BE ARRESTED. In order to issue the arrest warrant the prosecutor had to deviate from the law and withhold evidence that supported a justified us of force.
But on the subject of the "I'm the NRA" use by Brady… So far there is no evidence that George Zimmerman is a member of the NRA [he should join] but the logical point is being missed by the media and the thinkers.
The Brady folks want lots of gun violence because they can twist it into more gun control. Think Fast and Furious for a model. Why did the cartel leave the guns in question if it wasn't a set up for more gun control?
Don't give up the struggle for civil rights, fair treatments and honest government, Heller and McDonald just took the game into extra sudden death innings.

Keith

@James – "On the subject of George Zimmerman… He is being railroaded" Actually, from the slim amount of evidence that is known, I have to respectfully disagree. He was told not to follow the kid, yet he not only followed but confronted the kid. The kid was unarmed and Zimmerman had a handgun. How did Zimmerman "fear for his life"? He not only outweighed the kid by about double, but if you couple that with having a gun, do you *really* think the kid was going to "attack" him with his bag of skittles?

No, assuming Zimmerman was innocent and only trying to defend himself is a substantially longer leap than assuming his guilt. The fact is, we don't know all the facts of the case, so we can't make the innocent / guilty call, but given the evidence that is known, it is perfectly reasonable for them to arrest and send him to trial. Just because someone shot a "nigger", doesn't make it justifiable.

Keith

It's kind of sad that people have given a thumbs down to a comment that says we shouldn't jump to rash decisions and condemn or defend someone without having all the facts. Not that I admire the legal system in this country all that much, but it's sure better than cowboy justice. Is it that people think that Zimmerman shouldn't at least answer for his actions? At least provide some justification for killing an innocent, unarmed teenager in cold blood?

Gravy

Listen Dad for a gun owner you are very confused and sound to me alot like a liberal, you say you and your familly own and shoot guns, so that means all you guys own one .22 and just share it, cause you dont need 20. Second as far as I know George Zimmerman is still innocent he has not been found guilty of any crime that's, something the courts will decide. And finally owning a gun in the USA is a constitutional right not a barely earned privilege like some would have you believe. Men and women in this country have lost their lives defending that right and I'll be damned if after those sacrifices some liberal politician is going to tell me what I can and can't have and what size color or caliber it can be. What's next curfues and limit on children one can have, no sir as long as I work theirs nobody that's gonna tell me what I can and can't spend my money on.

dad

Gravy,

I am a gun onwer and I am not confused – I do not need 20 guns for plinking, competion and self defense . Please do not mix liberal/conservative talk with gun onership – these are two separate things.

Again I am a gun onwer and I want to keep this privilege. The problem is that everybody that helps bring a "Bad name" to gun owners is working against this privilege.

Keith

@dad – Minor correction: gun ownership is a RIGHT, not a Privilege. Other than that, I agree.

Drapper

your stupid and a liar dad

Guest

@dad Either you're not American or you're retarded

dad

another lobotomized RN . . .

Phil

i think you're a retard too dad

Alan_T

Ever notice how Dr. C. E. DeLeon , dad and several others all use the same phraseology and capitalization ?
Same person/s ? Hmmmmmmmmmmm makes you wonder , doesn't it ………..

Alan_T

Interesting to note that YOU showed up on the " The Trayvon Martin Case " page right after I posted this isn't it dad ! HAHAHAHAHA
So it does seem to be MORE than just a theory , doesn't it !
You fell pitt ? ? ? …… or do you mean , FEEL PITY ? As I told you before on the Media Gun Coverage page , I HAVE watched the video where Mr . Zimmerman was brought to the police station and it CLEARLY SHOWS a " Y " shaped gash on the back of his head !
Mr . Zimmerman wasn't " arreast " ( sic ) nor was he ARRESTED at THAT TIME .
No , I didn't contribute to Mr . Zimmerman's defense , because , for one thing I'm NOT a moron …. LIKE YOU !
So in summation dad , you're illiterate , you can't spell , you can't compose simple sentences , you don't have the correct facts , and you have " arreast " or arrested , tried and convicted a man without benefit of a trial .
Sounds like YOU ARE THE MORON , dad ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Alan_T

Don't confuse my personality with others ? ? ? …… Huh ? the " first sing of loosing " , do you mean the first SIGN of LOSING ? Are you " mentally challanged " dad ? if you are , just say so and I'll leave you alone . As for personal offenses ….. seems to me like you were the first one , but anyway , now along with lying and being illiterate you sound like a cry baby ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

dad

Typical RN posture. What are you doing next ? Pulling your .50 out for a duel ?

Oh sorry, you are at bed now, so you can wake up at 04:00AM to run your chicken farm . . . or milk the bulls, sorry the caws . . .

Alan_T

I'm getting so I can do is laugh at you dad ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What are you doing ? Getting yourself excited on . 50 metahopers and milking bulls and " sorry caws " ?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah I bet your bulls and " caws " ARE sorry ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH ! ….. and I see by this , that you waited untill YOU thought that I wouldn't be around to respond !
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

dad

Typical lobotomized RN . . .

Alan_T

dad …. what is this fixation you have with phallic symbols ? Are you trying to tell us that you're homosexual and you're dreaming of . 50's ? Lobotomized ? Somebody must have called YOU that or else you wouldn't know the word , let alone be able to spell it ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mack Missiletoe

The media makes me sick when it comes to firearm coverage:

-The media is mostly anti-gun without understanding our rights to own them.

-The media often intentionally makes responsible gun owners look bad–which is evil. We are Americans and would not be here if we were scared to own guns. We go through back ground checks before we are allowed to purchase guns and learn to safely use our guns. There is nothing wrong or illegal about it! In fact, many of us own guns, so to try and make us look bad is simply foolish.

-Every time I watch the media report on a certain gun design they explain it wrong. They do not understand how guns work and they don't want to understand them–it's obvious. Earlier today a reported stated that 'Silencer' is often considered the wrong term for a sound suppressor but he did not mention that it should be called a 'Sound Suppressor'. He just did not fully understand what he was talking about and should not report it.

-The media does not understand the difference between the good guy and the bad guy when it comes to guns. Guns are tools. Good guys take out bad guys with guns–it goes either way too. We should all be against the bad guy with the gun–but the good guy with the gun, like a Police Officer or Soldier, actually defends us. We would not be drinking Starbucks premium Coffee and have the blessing to wake up and work for a living if America's Army did not fight through death for our freedom. It is awesome and awful what troops went through during WWII (other wars too) and we need to respect this.

-Nobody likes it when the innocent or bystanders are murdered whether it be by firearm or automobile. There are laws in place to prevent this from happening but sometimes the bad guys may get through & unfortunately accidents do happen. However this should not prevent us from realizing our right to protect our home and to enjoy a fun Gun Range shoot with some friends.

-Guns do not shoot on their own. People have to press the buttons. Same as swords or knives. People have to work them in order to cut. Same as cars. Cars do not run over people on their own–there is an operator at the wheel. A standard of responsibility is required to own a car and a gun.

People everywhere own guns and the media needs to wake up. I think they realize we all own cars but not guns. When a bad guy shoots someone or a gun owners accidentally fires his gun we gun owners feel bad because these actions are not our will. We enjoys shooting our guns like the driver enjoys his car or the pilot enjoys his airplane.

dad

you are more for a fancy drape than a drapper . . .

Drapper

LOL LOL LOL you just sound stupider & stupider dad LOL

JonDoes

You are a magazine called Guns & Ammo, and you are from the country with the worst gun crime rates in the world, and you think defending the idea of having MORE guns is a good idea??!?

Most members of my family here in Europe have no clue what an AK47 is. But I am guessing that thanks to articles like these, a lot of American families know exactly what an AK47 is. I am also guessing that a lot of these same families are bombarded with messages telling them it is okay to own one.

And I am not saying this because I am an anti gun freak, my family own many firearms. It is juts that not one of those firearms looks like it would be more suitable for use in combat in Afgahnistan than at home in US suburbia.

HaChris

Have you ever been to US Suburbia? Just because it doesn't look like Afghanistan or Sudan doesn't mean that it is safe; just ask the family in Connecticut…OH! you CANT because all but one of them is dead, killed by psychos who didn't care one bit that the girl that they raped was eleven years old. There were no police or soldiers to protect them, but perhaps, had any member of the family owned a gun and been trained in its use, there would be two dead psychos and a family wouldn't have been murdered.

Alan_T

You seem to glorify ignorance dad . Your family must be truely stupid if they don't know what an AK 47 is . I thought you were claiming to be from the " republic " of Texas ? ( which by the way happens to be a state and not a republic , dad ) Guess we just can't keep a good troll down , huh dad ? OH …. I almost forgot , you have your facts wrong again as usual , the U . S . doesn't have the worst crime rates in the world .

Bruce

You are all being taken in by a liberal troll, just looking for an arguement. Just read his comments and how he pokes at all the talking points as if he has been to an anti gun convention. When he looses it he resorts to the don't call me that statement he has used here several times. The best thing to do is ignore him and don't give him any energy at tall.

Collegiate B

Successful trolling is successful. Guys, defend guns rights with facts instead of vitriol and shouting. Prove it with numbers, undeniable in academia.

~42.5% of households in the U.S. own a gun.
~47% of men own a gun.
~13% of women own a gun.
Guns are used in murders 66% of the time in the U.S.
Over the past year, about 0.5% of households used a gun for protection against crime.
8% of American crimes involve guns.
1,000,000 times a year guns are used to protect against crime, more than twice as often as for crime.
During the DC handgun ban, the murder rate was typically 73% higher than before the ban.
The U.S. murder rate average 11% lower on the whole during the same time period.
Gun crimes have never been higher in Britain' 65% higher than befoe the 1968 gun law.
The British murder rate has averaged 15% higher since its 1997 almost total gun ban.
The Chicago murder rate was 17% lower during the handgun ban.
The U.S. murder rate was 25% lower on the whole.
96% of those murders were done with banned handguns.
91% of background checks for gun purchases are cleared.
2000 Gun shows take place annually in America.
Crime is not influenced by gun shows in any meaningful way at all.
Gun carry by civilians is legal in 49/50 states, and shall-issue in 40/50 states.
Since Florida passed right to carry, the murder rate has averaged 36% lower.
The U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower at the same time.
0.3% of carry permits in Florida have been revoked.
2.4% of the 21 and up crowd in Texas has a gun carry permit.
The Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower since the law passed.
The U.S. rate has average 28% lower during this period.
Since Michigan passed right to carry legislation, the murder rate has averaged 4% lower.
During the same period, the U.S. Murder rate has averaged 2% lower.
There are 600 fatal gun accidents in the U.S. each year.
They make up 0.5% of all fatal accidents each year.
Nonfatal gun accidents make up .005% of all nonfatal accidents that result in emergency room visits annually.
Gun control groups donate 2% of the money to campaigns that gun rights groups contribute.
All but 1 court decision has affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The dissenting decision was later overturned in legal precedent.
In ~95% of defense incidents where the victims used guns, no shooting happened and the assailant ran away.
Civilians who fire in self defense are 5 times less likely to shoot the wrong person versus law enforcement.
They are also much more accurate, placing a significantly higher proportion of shots on the right target.

JiminGA

Just think what would have been the outcome if a good guy had been carrying a gun during the Norway massacre, where even the police are unarmed. Just maybe, less than 70+ people would have died.

the_new_guy

All I am going to say is, come to texas, they ussually arn't as ignorant about guns, and you ussually don't hear all to much about them unless your buddy says he/she is going hunting.

Alan_T

FOR dad and his troll minions :

From ABC News 5 / 15 / 12
" A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury "

HaChris

This still means nothing, except that the dead man fought back when confronted by someone who had no authority to pursue and confront him.

Alan_T

@ HaChris … This post was for dad and several others who repeatedly claimed here and elsewhere , that Mr . Zimmerman had NO INJURIES and is not intended as a defense one way or the other . I don't know what happened , I wasn't there , NOR WERE YOU , HaChris , but for you to suggest that Mr . Martin was in anyway justified as YOU SAY in " attacking " and " even killing " Mr . Zimmerman , IS INSANE ! Which means that you are insane ! ( in response to HaCris' comments under James Macklin )

Guest

My aunt was killed at age 15 in front of my mother, her little sister, by a boyfriend eager to show off his father's pistol. The gun discharged when he displayed it, and my aunt died almost instantly. That one event changed the lives of two families forever, and was utterly avoidable by regulating gun owners and ownership, and that's not a liberal or leftist perspective, it's a personal one.

Alan_T

That is indeed tragic Guest , if true , but that is exactly a liberal or leftest perspective regardless of whether it is a personal one , ie : blaming the gun and not the person . I don't know the circumstances , whether the " boyfriend " had the firearm legally or with permission from his father , BUT I DO KNOW that the fault lies solely with the " boyfriend " . Firearms are not possessed by some demonic entity nor do they just discharge themselves on their own . There had to be a human component in order for what you say happened to occur .

Ronald

I did not see him as blaming the gun ha said that people and guns should be regulated. They both are. People should be "checked out" more though.

Alan_T

No Ronald , Guest didn't say " people and guns " , Guest said , " regulating gun owners and ownership " . Assuming , of course the story is true ( and that is a pretty large assumption ) , all the regulations in the world can not protect us from reckless endangerment , nor can regulations protect anyone from those who have obtained firearms they are not authorized to have . I reiterate , the fault is solely that of the alleged " boyfriend " And factually , Guest's opinion is indeed Liberal and Leftest .

fgn

that is very sad, it is unfortunate the boy did not have any gun handling training so this could have been avoided. Sadly every gun accident is avoidable with training resulting in safe and proper handling.

Ronald

I just read the whole article and i did not find it to be anti-gun at all. The author even shoots. She gave a lot of historical background and even pointed out how the instructors at the range don't take any chances with anyone when it comes to checking their knowledge of safety. I do question her stats about ownership “rate”. Rate can mean a few things which could make you both right.

Firebird

When ever theres amass shooting the media sharks have a feeding freinzie as they always do when they smell blood

http://www.facebook.com/bonnie.b.davidson Bonnie Bon Bon Davidson

Hey writer. Just wanted to throw out there that I am a journalist in Idaho, I’m a gun owner, and I’m a supporter of my 2nd Amendment rights. As you sit her generalizing every journalist to be anti gun remember there’s also a lot of us who are pro.

Bruce

That’s excellent. I have seen several pro-gun media people at the local level. But they, and you, will probably never get jobs that place your articles in front of millions of people every day as national top-story news desk reporters. It is those people for whom the broad generalization can be accurately applied, and they probably have far more sway on the general public than do the sum of all the local reporters.

Johnny A. Scott

We don’t need to increase the restrictions. We need to increase the education. The more educated law abiding gun owners there are the better off we all are. It’s inexperience and ignorance that is dangerous. Not the weapons themselves. I personally believe that Missouri (my home state) CCW laws are to relaxed. I dont believe someone should be able to take an 8 hour class and shoot 40 rounds then be mislead into thinking they are now prepared to use a firearm in a life or death situation. It doesn’t change the fact that it is their right. My opinion is that people should be more responsible in recognizing their weaknesses and it should be their responsibility to seek further training. For the record, I’m a basic and advanced handgun tactics, weapons safety, and personal defense instructor. We combine the use of hand 2 hand combat (using Krav Maga) and weapon tactics to serve a more inclusive form of self defense.